RE: [pf] FW: venom

>At 09:04 PM 4/30/2001 -1000, Kaleopono wrote:
>>tully, both David A and Betsy have informed me ... the view that I have
been unduly harsh in addressing David A's behavior toward other list members.
At 10:16 1/5/2001 -0400, tully wrote:
>If no one feels strongly enough to voice their objection to the list or to
you privately, then I see no need to concern yourself with hearsay. 
> I think we need to keep this on-list.  This affects all of us and I think
it should be openly discussed.
>

· There are two separate features to this, _style_ and _substance_, and if
it's to be dealt-with on-list then only a single short note from each
person, _using_moderate_words_, should be used, IMO.

· Peer-pressure has its place in a self-organising (i.e. non-heirarchical)
society, which I take an e-mail list to be. It's place most times is to
deal with defining the boundaries of "acceptable" behaviour, and efforts to
bring the rare "beyond-the-pale" event back into acceptable again. So
on-list comment is necessary, under the above condition.

· _Style_:
   I see no place in discussion for *ad hominem* to-the-person statements,
though characterising someone's world-view, pigeon-holing what they say
with other people's similar expressions of opinion, is on the boundary - it
can be acceptable, but perhaps should be done as a question.
  In the case of an e-mail list (or in real life, while one can get up and
leave, i.e. not in a car), the ability to not-read someone's posts means
that after the above single e-mail of objection, they can be ignored if
that's your choice. So I have greater tolerance for such occasional
objectionable posts being sent to the list than many here.

· _Substance_: 
   For me, this is the purpose of a discussion list; for example I left two
previous lists (Frugal-Ed and Deep-Ecology) because there was so rarely
anything of substance, anything which made me stop and think, on them.
   And I'm still here because it does keep on happening here.

· I looked back to find the most recent posts from David Appell, hoping he
was not put-off from posting, and the first I looked at is a good example
of what I mean: a point well worth considering. The rest of this is that
post; I don't happen to agree with David A. on this (the use of the word
anarchist to describe such violent actions), 
 
|  but I strongly defend his right to make such opinions known
|  (the right of free speech) _and_on_this_Positive_Futures_list_
|  too; reality includes violence (occasionally), so it
|  will happen in a positive future. 

On 28 Apr 2001 10:30:19 -0000, David Appell wrote, re
>"Kristallnacht": Anarchists of 
>> the time, believing their feelings were justified and they had
>> the right to destructively express them, went across the country
>> one night smashing in the windows of Jewish shopowners.
> 
At 09:04 28/4/2001 -0500, Betsy Barnum wrote:
> Those were not anarchists. They were Nazis. Huge difference.

On 28 Apr 2001 14:13:34 -0000, David Appell wrote:
Not really. Both see violence as a way to accomplish their ends. Both 
think their violence is justified. At base, they have the same 
Neanderthal mentality -- might makes right.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
************************************************

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.aVx3Cb
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: archive+pfvs@csf.colorado.edu

T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
==^================================================================